The Dean

So you're saying Lupati is the only option, and otherwise the Bills will be one of the worst OLs in the game? Seems like a pretty odd conclusion. Ideally all positions should come through the draft. In truth, they can come from trades, FA, UDFA, etc. The Bills OL has plenty of home-grown draft picks. Plugging the holes with a FA or two shouldn't deter anyone. I have confidence this front office will address the OL issue. They have for the past two years. Some moves have turned out to be more successful than others, of course, But nobody can credibly claim the Bills have ignored the OL. I recall a time, only months ago, when the Bills OL was being discussed as a major strength of the team. I still think they have 3/5 of a solid OL. I believe they will address the Guard issue in the offseason.

Yikes indeed.

Saw this on BBC America news this morning. When ever I see stuff like this, I start asking questions. These immediately popped into my head: How do they calculate the average consumption of those countries? Do they count minors, or only those if drinking age? Do they count non-drinkers? Pregnant women? How did they get those measurements anyway? This would be FAR more valuable as a tool (and not just a novelty) if they gave a bit more info on the methodology. I would think a comparison of the average DRINKER would be the most appropriate measurement, as non-drinkers are really irrelevant to the comparison. Plus you have countries where drinking is illegal or taboo, so a Muslim country (for example) would have far more non-drinkers--but their drinkers may consume far more than the average drinker somewhere else (hypothetically). Might be nice to see more data than "average" but now I'm asking for too much, right? With that said, Moldova, 2nd heaviest in the world.

Or touch your eye. I've learned both the hard way.

Actually, it has to be very hot, and I have to be very thirsty for me to "enjoy" a Corona. One of my least favorite beers. But regarding the chili talk, I was specifically talking about eating the chili raw (the flavor of the chili by itself), not sure that was made clear, though.

The only horror movie to ever make me jump a bit was the original Halloween. Rosemary's Baby was pretty creepy. I laughed during the Exorcist. Never tried Chef's headphone trick, though. Brain Damage was funny and creepy. Still, the creepiest horror movie, and my favorite to date, is Videodrome.

That explains why I'm not a big fan, as I find jalapenos kind of lame--pablanos too. Yes, they are OK in chili. I actually like chili (if very hot) but I detest beans and almost all chili sold at restaurants in the USA includes beans.

I get that for sure. Very hot food is addictive to me. Thai tends to be my most favored but it's hard to beat a good lamb vindaloo. Too bad St Augustine doesn't have a decent Thai or Indian restaurant. (Well we have one restaurant that has an Indian buffet, but that doesn't appeal to me as the heat level has to be quite mild for a buffet,) Fortunately we have a very good Asian market, so I've been making some Thai dishes, but have yet to seriously experiment with Indian cooking. I've never tried a raw Naga Jolokia (ghost chili), but sometimes my favorite Thai place in Jacksonville has them and slips a little in my order. (They actually gave me a plant once, but it got aphids while on my patio.) I'm told they are so overpoweringly hot, they have little detectable flavor. But some people say the same things about habaneros and they have great flavor. I really dig the small thai chilis to nibble on. But I will say I'm not that keen on peppers labeled "chipotle" (which I think are really morita peppers) or jalapenos.

Habanero peppers have great flavor, as to datil peppers and Thai chilis.

OK, let's pretend these guys could be had. My reaction (for what it's worth): Cutler? HELL NO! Flacco? Interesting Palmer? Certainly Kap? Maybe. Still not quite sure about the dude, but would probably give him a shot. Dalton? Yup. Newton? Certainly So, the only one on this list I wouldn't consider is Cutler, who is most likely the only one who will be available.

In the event I find myself at a BWW, I always order the Blazin', extra crispy. Still I find them not quite hot enough and just OK t asting. Duffs Suicidal (do they still call them that?) are more to my liking. IMO, if you aren't hallucinating, the wings aren't hot enough. The hiccups are a good sign the wings are hot enough, too. With that said, they still have to taste good. The combination of extremely hot, and tasty wings, is a pretty hard sweet spot to hit. Many people think just making the wings obnoxiously hot is enough. Nope. They have to taste great, and like Buffalo Wings, plus be extraordinarily hot. I know how to do it for myself (does that sound dirty?) but very few wing joints manage to pull it off (does that sound dirty?). BTW, CBF, there used to be a bar near St Catherines called Mugs and Jugs (or something like that), owned by a friend of mine. We went there, and my buddy had tipped them off that I like to eat extremely hot food. When I got my wings they were coated in a hot pepper rub (no real sauce). They tasted like crap, but were very hot. Still I ate them, and much to the surprise of everyone there, I didn't immediately hit my beer. In fact I ate three or four of the wings before taking a sip. Understand the wings were terrible, but I know they were trying to pull a stunt on me. Anyway, when I returned a month or two later, there was a plaque on the wall, with my name, and something to the effect of "The hottest wings ever eaten" engraved. Truth is, if I didn't know it was a setup I would have sent them back. Not for being too hot, but for sucking.

He MIGHT be an upgrade over Orton, as Orton is a known entity---but not if he (Cutler) is chucking 3 INTs, fumbling and fairly apathetic about the team (and game) in general. Is he an upgrade over EJ? Dunno, because I still don't think we know what we have in EJ. Here's what I think I know about Cutler. He isn't the QB to take the Bills to the next level, and may actually drag them down. He has a strong arm, but otherwise he's a BUM! I believe the Bills should sign a QB in FA and draft a QB (thought there isn't anyone I'm all that crazy about). Then have a truly open competition for #1---and pray to God EJ wins it by performing. Orton, a rookie or any QB who is likely to be available in FA will likely be a placeholder stop-gap measure.

Cutler? The Bills have a strong defense and quality ST. Let's add a turnover machine, head case. Great idea! Hell No!

John, I've attended Bills games in every decade in their existence. Through the good years and the bad years. I agree with your desire for the team to be focused on winning, and a product worthy of watching. But since 1960 there has been one thing you can count on as a Bills fan. A very good gameday experience. And an integral part of that experience in Buffalo, has been the tailgating. You may not care about that, but I would bet a huge percentage of current fans do. Of course, that is a research question, we are both just speculating. And let's be clear, the tailgate experience isn't just about getting sloshed (though it is Buffalo, a city with a strong drinking culture) it is about community and comradery. It is about spending the entire day together, with the Bills game as the focus. For stadiums without that, and especially those that are covered, the gameday experience is more like a 4-hour diversion, IMO. Get in, get out. Clean. Businesslike. Sterile. For watching the game itself, The Ralph is fine, actually better than fine, for the average fan. Great sight-lines, terrific crowd involvement. Sure a "state of the art" facility would be a nice thing for Buffalo, and the fans. But what makes a stadium "state of the art"? A covered stadium is old news, actually. I'm surprised they are still building them. Baseball seems to be getting out of the inside experience and retractable roofs have taken over for most of the newer NFL stadiums that have any cover at all. And like you, I don't believe in going with the status quo simply because "that's the way it has always been". But ignoring your customers (in this case the fans) is a sure way to change into failure for a business. Changing the product on the field is something everyone can get behind. But dramatically changing the gameday experience is something that needs to be done carefully, and not simply because "that's the trend these days".

I recall a documentary series from the 1960's/70's, Gentle Ben. I learned bears are friendly and it is safe to let your children hug them.

John, no doubt putting together a team only suited to play in bad weather is a bad strategy if the goal is to go to, and win, a Super Bowl. But it isn't impossible to put a team together that can play indoors, in good, and in bad weather. The Bills did it for years and so did the Steelers. The Bills went to four SBs and the Steelers even won a few. But I disagree with you assertion that a good QB is good in any weather. That simply isn't always the case. GREAT players may be good in all types of weather. But good, even very good, players can be affected by the elements. And I respect your preference to watch a game indoors, but the Bills (and other NE teams) have shown if the team is winning there are more than enough fans willing to brave the elements to watch the team play. IMO football is very different than baseball in many ways, but none more important than football is actually better to watch on TV than in person. Baseball is boring in person. Being at the park is a great experience and you get more involved in the game. Again, IMO. With all the replays (and now with the all 22 views of the game, for those that can get that) you actually see more at home than you do in person. For me, the reason to go the stadium is, in large part, the tailgate experience and the comradery with your fellow fans. That comradery just isn't the same in fair weather. It really blossoms when the weather gets ugly. Your mileage may vary. I know, when the Bills are losing, attendance tends to decline in December. I'm wondering, if the Bills are out of it early, if fans will bother to show up in October or November in a downtown indoor stadium, with limited tailgating.The blackout rules are in jeopardy and any idiot with an Internet IQ of 80+ knows how to watch them on TV. The game day experience is what will matter going forward. Some here, like me, believe the tailgate experience is a huge part of that. Some believe pop concerts, fireworks, huge scoreboards and other constant non-football-related entertainment is what is important. A downtown stadium is likely to severely curtail tailgating, make the commute far more difficult and frankly add little to the local economy. (8 Sunday home games does not save the downtown area. And spare me the argument that the few extra events that might take place in the stadium will make that much of a difference.) Buffalo is far more like Pittsburgh and Cleveland than it is like New Orleans, Texas or Arizona. And the only Northeast stadium that is covered is in Detroit. It is a huge risk to change the gameday experience for Bills fans, IMO. The safe bet is to keep the stadium in the suburbs and leave it open with plenty of tailgating availability. We know that works for the fans of WNY. Changing any of those variables represents a bit of a risk. Changing ALL of those variables is a huge risk, IMO. Yes, as has been explained, it should increase the demand for luxury seats and boxes. But what will it do for the vast majority of seats in t he stadium? Frankly I don't know. I'm a research guy and that would be an interesting project to study. But this is one of those studies I question if there is a way to really assess what people will do. Suck away they experience Bills fans are used to and even they probably don't know how they will respond. But I'm a realist, and I understand it is likely things will change under new ownership. The stadium will probably be downtown since Pegula is building an empire there. (A mistake in my mind, but one that can probably be overcome.) Since it will be close to the waterfront, it will likely have to have some sort of roof. I seriously hope it is retractable, as at least in the fall it can be open and give the fans some feeling of being at a football game. But I hope for the fans, and the future of the Bills, they keep the tailgate experience at some level. Remember, Bills fans tailgated when they played at the Rockpile (though the experience was a bit different). But that kind of parking and tailgating isn't likely to be repeated. A sterile experience (which it seems some are predicting and actually rooting for) isn't a great bet for Buffalo. Again, just my prediction and opinion. But I can't imagine fans being as loyal to the team for years of failure as they have been, when the atmosphere is sterile.

Just so we're clear here, the team as currently constructed probably gets little advantage playing in the elements. But certainly a team CAN be constructed to have an advantage in bad elements. Of course the quality of the players matters, but so does the style of the offense and the skill players. The Steelers have, for years, built a team wonderfully suited to play in crappy weather. That's not so much the case these days, but it was for a long time. BADOBILLS made a fairly compelling argument explaining how the style of play in the NFL has evolved to minimize the degree to which the elements give a team an advantage. I'd say he is mostly right with his analysis. But don't think for a minute, when a team like the Bills starts putting a whopping on a team used to playing indoors and/or in warm weather, the cold doesn't start to sap their will more than it does the Bills' players. I've seen it happen too many times to believe that isn't a factor. Just as Miami (for example) gets a small advantage when the temps top 90 degrees and the humidity is stifling. It's silly to think weather plays an overwhelming part in the outcome of any game. But it is equally silly to think that it can never play ANY part in it.

Well, Niagara Falls Ontario probably falls within the "hours drive" criterion on a typical day. It can easily take much longer. A decision will need to be made as to whether the bulk of accommodations can be in another country. I'd say my worst NFL game day experiences were in the Superdome, the old Kingdome. the old Metrodome and in Milwaukee County Stadium (when the Packers played there). Some other terrible venues where I have also watched NFL games include the LA Coliseum, Candlestick Park and Oakland Coliseum---but the game day experience was far better for theses games.

"I said NO PICTURES!" Driving in Great Smoky Mountain National Park one day, about 30 years ago, we noticed many cars pulled off to the side of the road. We pulled over to see what was happening. There was a bear in a clearing right off the road and people were taking pictures. So my buddy jumps over the barrier and down to the level where the bear was. He was maybe 15-20 feet from the bear, snapping pictures. The park rangers showed up and ordered everyone away, but my friend decided to snap a couple more shots. It was then we noticed this bear had something attached to it. The Ranger went on to explain (and not in a nice way) that this bear had a tracking device on because it had wandered into "civilized" parts of the park before. She said something to the effect of, "This bear has caused over $4000 dollars of damage to cars and another $3000 in damage to camp sights...: and so on. My buddy, still taking pictures, turns to her and asks. "You trying to give him the bill?" Good times.

Who farted?

Man, Judy Greer is in everything these days. That's fine by me, actually. Ron Howard's daughter looks pretty good these days, too. I really can't get that excited by another CGI driven movie. Even harder when the male lead looks to be a guy with zero personality. But then again, I guess that formula has been successful in the newer Batman and James Bond movies.

Wow. So sad. Kudos to his former teammates for stepping up and helping out Daryl and his family. Let's hope the Bills and the NFL make an effort to step up their efforts, too.

Not sure why you think that, as just about everyone with any real connection to the situation has said a covered stadium is pretty much a done deal, While I prefer an open air stadium, the info on the Bills sale should have taught everyone here one lesson. Kirby and Bandit have a very good handle on what is going on. Unless you have some super special source, I think you should believe what they have to say, But I do agree, if it isn't an open air, I can probably live with a retractable roof, as at least for a few games a year it will actually feel like there is a football game being played. And another thing (arms flailing and feet stomping)---why can't they grow grass under a covered roof? I know people who grow pot indoors! I refuse to believe there isn't a strain of grass, and the right kind of lights, to allow grass to be grown in a covered stadium. Sure, I don't know crap about it, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it! If the Bills are kicking some ass, the weather never wins. Remember the 51-3 game against the Raiders? I keep hearing how bad the weather was that day. I recall it being wonderful. My jacket was off for most of the game and we were so pumped we were sweating. Winning solves every weather issue. Covering the stadium is just giving the team an excuse to continue to lose. I know it is probably inevitable, but I've never liked going to a game played indoors. Feels phony to me.

Warren Moon doesn't think so, and I tend to agree: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9234640/warren-moon-tim-tebow-throwing-not-cut-cfl

From what I understand, no CFL team guaranteed him the starting QB spot. Here's one example: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000165254/article/might-tim-tebow-make-it-to-cfls-montreal-alouettes He also may not have wanted to play in Canada, but the my point was, as far as I can tell, no CFL team was offering him a #1 QB spot.